Worlds Energy requirements ' May be ' within our technological Grasp !

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The problem here is that you keep quoting two specifications that are mutually exclusive. You cannot simultaneously have low power for safety and enough power to be useful for powering things.

 

Light that gets absorbed at the surface can quickly be radiated away with a small increase in temperature. Waves that penetrate before depositing energy require the core temperature to increase, to conduct heat to the skin, so it can radiate away (and have evaporative cooling, etc.)

 

.

I am finding it hard to conceptually grasp that long waves are harmful . If one looks at the entire electro magnetic spectrum from grumbling oscillations at a sub sound hearing level , being as benign as a young kiddy jumping through the rotational hoop where two other children are swinging a rope , like a giant half wave . Up through the painless sound range ( unless heavy rock gets to you ) with babies being detected with ultra sonics . A quick skip to the far end of the Electro magnetic spectrum with deadly gamma rays , of radio activity ( visions of men trudging around in water and radio active waste after an exploding nuclear power station ) , x rays with hospital technicians going out of the room when you have an x ray . Even thinking in terms of light with uv at one end and infra red at the lower end of the light spectrum. We still find the upper end of the radio spectrum wary of microwaves. Yet as we reduce in frequency we get the feeling of a safer environment around normal radio frequencies of yesteryear with radio Luxembourg on 208 meters medium wave. And here we are at LONG WAVE radio at 1500 meters . Everything feels peaceful and harmless.

I have been among this benign realm all my life . I have seen the miracle of radio waves leave a piece of open ended wire and head off across the world silently , slipping into the sky to surface , having first hit the ionosphere , and reflected back to some listener in the Mediterranean Sea area , or the United States , or even Australia. These benign waves clearly carry some energy as neon bulbs would light up near the antenna , without even being connected.

 

I am still alive to tell the tale .

 

Mike

Edited July 15, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

 

I have been among this benign realm all my life .

 

You've been bathed in 100W of long wave all your life? Somehow I doubt that.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

You've been bathed in 100W of long wave all your life? Somehow I doubt that.

You've been bathed in 100W of long wave all your life? Somehow I doubt that.

Well certainly 40 metres. 80 metres 160 metres @ ( 100 - 150 watts ) for protracted periods of time .

 

Mike

 

Ps Maybe that's what's addled my brain !

Edited July 15, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Well certainly 40 metres. 80 metres 160 metres @ ( 100 - 150 watts ) for protracted periods of time .

 

 

Details, please. Is this an antenna? What power output and how far away?

[Mordred]

Well it wouldn't be a legal radio antennae in The US by today's regulations. Max transmit power for UHF and VHF antennaes are usually 25 watts. 50 watts with specific licensing. Even then most mobile radios for extra long range max out at 100 watt. I've never encountered one higher even on the repeaters. Highest I've come across in 3 different models is 100 watt but that takes licensing to run at that level.

 

At least in accordance with today's regs in US and Canada.

 

Portable radios ie handheld are 5 to 10 watts

Edited July 15, 2015 by Mordred

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Well it wouldn't be a legal radio antennae in The US by today's regulations. Max transmit power for UHF and VHF antennaes are usually 25 watts. 50 watts with specific licensing. Even then most mobile radios for extra long range max out at 100 watt. I've never encountered one higher even on the repeaters. Highest I've come across in 3 different models is 100 watt but that takes licensing to run at that level.

At least in accordance with today's regs in US and Canada.

Portable radios ie handheld are 5 to 10 watts

Well I better check on the current regs in the u.k. . A lot of it moved to single side band , where the power levels were much smaller . I quite like cw ( continuous wave ) with morse code . Straight forward full carrier with a morse code key , turning the carrier on and off ( short and long strokes) ( dot and dash )

 

-- .. -.- . Mike in morse code

 

 

Nice lumps of RF coming out in 100 watt chunks , out of a glowing 807 power transmitting valve .

This is when men were men and bar maids ... ..... .....

 

Link :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_wave

 

Eg some frequency bands 400 watts peak envelope power

 

Eg Wattage :- 1.810-1.830 Primary. Available on the basis of non-interference to other services (outside the United Kingdom) (Not allocated) 400W (26dBW)

1.830-1.850 Primary

1.850-2.000 Available on the basis of non-interference to other services (inside or outside the United Kingdom) 32W (15dBW)

3.500-3.800 Primary. Shared with other services 400W (26dBW)

7.000-7.100 Primary Primary

10.100-10.150 Secondary (Not allocated)

14.000-14.250 Primary Primary

14.250-14.350 (not allocated)

18.068-18.168

Primary

21.000-21.450

24.890-24.990

28.000-29.700

1 2 3 4 5

Frequency

bands in MHz

 

Status of Allocations in the United Kingdom to:

Edited July 16, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Details, please. Is this an antenna? What power output and how far away?

This is the driving power ( into and from ) the final r.f output stage , to the antenna , say a dipole

 

I think it is a double classification ( both DC input power to last stage of transmitter or peak envelope power output ) ( 150 watts in and 400 watts peak envelope power out )

 

 

However I would experiment with much less power to test the principle , so as to not cause interference by mistake (Say 1 to 3 watt input power ) and it would need to be within the allocated frequency bands .

 

I am sure by single step function will be so short as to not cause interference anyway ( provided low power is used )

 

I have done this in the physics classroom before ,to demonstrate the magic of radio communications . Just with two identically assemblies . coil 20 turns capacitor 50 Picofarad in parallel , 20 cm single wire poking into the air above . Apply pulse from 1.5 volt battery . Look on an oscilloscope ,on second remote coil . See the blip !

 

That is message , not power . ( although it is debatable ,if it is not one and the same thing ) I am sure one could build around that to make an energy transfer experiment . Even in pico watts . Or milli watts . The rest is " development " . Which is probably re-inventing the wheel . It really depends what proportion of a sphere you want . That is antenna design .

 

 

Mike

Edited July 16, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Dodecyl Sulfobetaine]

This is the driving power ( into and from ) the final r.f output stage , to the antenna , say a dipole

 

I think it is a double classification ( both DC input power to last stage of transmitter or peak envelope power output ) ( 150 watts in and 400 watts peak envelope power out )

 

 

However I would experiment with much less power to test the principle , so as to not cause interference by mistake (Say 1 to 3 watt input power ) and it would need to be within the allocated frequency bands .

 

I am sure by single step function will be so short as to not cause interference anyway ( provided low power is used )

 

I have done this in the physics classroom before ,to demonstrate the magic of radio communications . Just with two identically assemblies . coil 20 turns capacitor 50 Picofarad in parallel , 20 cm single wire poking into the air above . Apply pulse from 1.5 volt battery . Look on an oscilloscope ,on second remote coil . See the blip !

 

That is message , not power . ( although it is debatable ,if it is not one and the same thing ) I am sure one could build around that to make an energy transfer experiment . Even in pico watts . Or milli watts . The rest is " development " . Which is probably re-inventing the wheel . It really depends what proportion of a sphere you want .

 

image.jpg

 

Mike

I am interested in your topic.Though I think it's a little difficult for me to understand,I think you are creative.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I am interested in your topic.Though I think it's a little difficult for me to understand,I think you are creative.

.

You just made my day !

 

Mike

 

I have gone my entire life , being utterly fascinated by the 'magic ' of pondering how radio waves can be developed in a piece of wire , fairly easily , and something hare's off into space at this phenomenal speed of 186,000 miles per second , to the moon and back in a few seconds ,or to the other side of the galaxy in 100,000 years . Provided it doesn't hit anything , intact as a 'capsule ' or photon of energy .

 

I am still fascinated in my retirement ! Some 10's ( too many ) of years later !

 

So am I da !

 

Edited July 16, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

This is the driving power ( into and from ) the final r.f output stage , to the antenna , say a dipole

 

 

Unless you were hugging the antenna, you weren't exposed to these power levels.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Unless you were hugging the antenna, you weren't exposed to these power levels.

I did not think it worked like an electric fire. I thought , and I have been trying to get to the bottom of this for some time :-

The movement of electric charge , in the form of electron movement in the antenna conductor, set up some form of field , that by dint of the speed and frequency of oscillation , broke free , rather quickly from the near field to produce a PHOTON wave of energy , that shot off across space at the speed of light. If I was anywhere around , this would have swept , past , through, or around me , provided I , or parts of me did not oscillate at some form of resonance caused by the frequency of the wave.

At 40 meters that would make me a 1/40 th , at 80 meters 1/80th and my bodily parts probably ( 1/50- 1/100th ) of those (1/40, 1/80 ) .

Unless I completely misunderstand EM waves / PHOTON interaction with living things ( like me ?)

 

Mike

Edited July 16, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

I did not think it worked like an electric fire. I thought , and I have been trying to get to the bottom of this for some time :-

The movement of electric charge , in the form of electron movement in the antenna conductor, set up some form of field , that by dint of the speed and frequency of oscillation , broke free , rather quickly from the near field to produce a PHOTON wave of energy , that shot off across space at the speed of light. If I was anywhere around , this would have swept , past , through, or around me , provided I , or parts of me did not oscillate at some form of resonance caused by the frequency of the wave.

At 40 meters that would make me a 1/40 th , at 80 meters 1/80th and my bodily parts probably ( 1/50- 1/100th ) of those (1/40, 1/80 ) .

Unless I completely misunderstand EM waves / PHOTON interaction with living things ( like me ?)

 

Mike

 

Radiation intensity drops off with the distance as r^2. IOW, you are not going to interact with photons shot off in some other direction, and the solid angle you present as a target gets smaller as you are further away. At 1m, the solid angle of a 1m^2 human is only about ~1/12 of the sphere. (the intensity will not be 1/12, because dipoles are not isotropic, so call it ~1/10 of the power). At 10m, that drops by another factor of 100.

 

IOW, if you were exposed to 100W and you were 10m away, the source must have been ~100 kW. if you were 1m away, the source must have been ~1 kW. Those numbers do not jibe with what you have claimed.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Radiation intensity drops off with the distance as r^2. IOW, you are not going to interact with photons shot off in some other direction, and the solid angle you present as a target gets smaller as you are further away. At 1m, the solid angle of a 1m^2 human is only about ~1/12 of the sphere. (the intensity will not be 1/12, because dipoles are not isotropic, so call it ~1/10 of the power). At 10m, that drops by another factor of 100.

 

IOW, if you were exposed to 100W and you were 10m away, the source must have been ~100 kW. if you were 1m away, the source must have been ~1 kW. Those numbers do not jibe with what you have claimed.

Yes well this is exactly the same reasoning I made two or three posts ago . When I was speaking it all depends on the part of the sphere you wish to consider. A focused beam can be nearly 100 % whereas a total sphere ( everything going every where is the inverse square law of dilution of field strength . Accepted . If you are talking about my comment . " I have lived with it all my life ...." This was a slight throw away remark.

 

I cannot compete with the world health organisation , and their research on detrimental experience of exposure to E.m. Waves .

I have not unearthed anything yet that says much about long waves. Except that " its not the energy ...it's the frequency"

" higher frequency ,more danger" so I would assume , less frequency ( namely longer wavelength) less danger.

 

However , I am very interested if, seeing as we have entered a new phase in scientific / electronic systems that use very much lower amounts of power/ energy , that :- is it possible to distribute energy to electrical gadgets from a distance . I spent a section of my life building interconnecting cables for computers and peripherals . Electrical apparatus around the home and office are " cluttered to a standstill in wires" . It's time for distributed energy . Get rig of all these wires , they are driving everybody crazy .

 

There is probable no good reason why power should not be distributed from ' HUBs ' , whether this be home hubs to charge all devices and power all electrical kit ( TV , computer, hi fi etc ) Or dare I say it local mobility , bicycles, small-small cars , small flying craft . Da de da . From space based disc satellites.

 

 

Edited July 16, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Yes well this is exactly the same reasoning I made two or three posts ago . When I was speaking it all depends on the part of the sphere you wish to consider. A focused beam can be nearly 100 % whereas a total sphere ( everything going every where is the inverse square law of dilution of field strength . Accepted . If you are talking about my comment . " I have lived with it all my life ...." This was a slight throw away remark.

I would prefer not having to address throw-away remarks. Given the already low S/N, I can't identify them as such.

 

I cannot compete with the world health organisation , and their research on detrimental experience of exposure to E.m. Waves .

I have not unearthed anything yet that says much about long waves. Except that " its not the energy ...it's the frequency"

" higher frequency ,more danger" so I would assume , less frequency ( namely longer wavelength) less danger.

Once again I will point out that you can't ignore the variable of power. Please stop doing so. Even for ionizing radiation this is the case — the dose matters.

 

However , I am very interested if, seeing as we have entered a new phase in scientific / electronic systems that use very much lower amounts of power/ energy , that :- is it possible to distribute energy to electrical gadgets from a distance . I spent a section of my life building interconnecting cables for computers and peripherals . Electrical apparatus around the home and office are " cluttered to a standstill in wires" . It's time for distributed energy . Get rig of all these wires , they are driving everybody crazy .

Doesn't the absence of localized devices to do this tell you anything about the viability of it? This is not something that scales.

 

It's not even a matter of whether you can hit break-even in the cost vs wired systems. Wireless power would be inherently inefficient. What would the density of antennas be like? A percent? (i.e. 1 m^2 of antenna, taking in power, per 100m^2 of total area). That means you are wasting 99% of the power, so it costs 100x as much to use. And if you have a large antenna density, then you have just traded wires cluttering up the space for antennas cluttering up even more space, because wires are much smaller.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I would prefer not having to address throw-away remarks. Given the already low S/N, I can't identify them as such.

 

 

Once again I will point out that you can't ignore the variable of power. Please stop doing so. Even for ionizing radiation this is the case the dose matters.

 

 

Doesn't the absence of localized devices to do this tell you anything about the viability of it? This is not something that scales.

 

It's not even a matter of whether you can hit break-even in the cost vs wired systems. Wireless power would be inherently inefficient. What would the density of antennas be like? A percent? (i.e. 1 m^2 of antenna, taking in power, per 100m^2 of total area). That means you are wasting 99% of the power, so it costs 100x as much to use. And if you have a large antenna density, then you have just traded wires cluttering up the space for antennas cluttering up even more space, because wires are much smaller.

..

.

This business of " just because it's not been done yet ! " is not valid. We would have got nowhere if we waited for others to do things !

The evidence is :-

People are enjoying walking about with a phone to their ear, an I pd or tablet in their pocket to be pulled out anywhere any time . The problem is when they run out of energy . They ask if they can plug in somewhere , or they go home a sift through four wires tangled by their bed , one wire for their phone , one for their I pad , one for their ear pod , cassette player and goodness knows what . They trip over the cabling the connector frays and the whole thing goes down .

 

No it's definitely time , if only for home and office based distributed power systems. But then the argument goes larger.

 

Sorry about the signal to noise problem . We obviously have a different style of talking . Me fairly exploratory ,deliberately to try alternatives even though they may be a non starter. You wanting things to be exact statements of truth , all the way through . ( if I have got you wrong ,I am sorry )

 

I understand what you are saying about scaling power . But I have not seen any evidence whatsoever for long waves having ANY serious effect on health ( low or high intensity ) again might have it wrong , but not found anything specific to long wave .

 

Antennas , you can do something about .

As I have illustrated , for very low power you could use a quartz crystal .

 

When radios first came out people were putting wire aerial down their gardens . Doom someone invented the ferrite rod. Portable radios came out with these ferrite rods contained within the small radio set . The same thing happened with mobile phones . Business men first used them , with arm hold portable phones the size of a large coca cola bottle with a stick in it . ( antenna ) now the antenna is all part of the circuit board inside the slim small case .

 

Mike

 

I think if I put something on the table, that works , will be a start .

Edited July 16, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

 

I understand what you are saying about scaling power . But I have not seen any evidence whatsoever for long waves having ANY serious effect on health ( low or high intensity ) again might have it wrong , but not found anything specific to long wave .

 

It's not a matter of long wave being special or not — there's no inherent reason for it to be singled out for study. The damage would be the same kind you would get for other non-ionizing radiation. And there's plenty of evidence that you can do damage with sufficient power of non-ionizing radiation.

This business of " just because it's not been done yet ! " is not valid. We would have got nowhere if we waited for others to do things !

 

 

You have started every new business initiative, ever? No, that's not an argument. We almost exclusively wait for others to do things.

 

If people could make money at this, there's a really good chance they would be doing it already. I gave a reason why it's not economically viable, but you have (once again) chosen to ignore actual facts and rigorous reasoning in favor of hand-waving. What's the advantage in having distributed power that is at least*100x more expensive than wall-plug power? Is there really a demand for this?

 

*my 1% example assumes the device is always using the power. Not the case for most portable devices. If you charge 10% of the time, then you have 0.1% utilization, so you need to charge > 1000% of the nominal rate to make money (there is always overhead to worry about).

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

It's not a matter of long wave being special or not — there's no inherent reason for it to be singled out for study. The damage would be the same kind you would get for other non-ionizing radiation. And there's plenty of evidence that you can do damage with sufficient power of non-ionizing radiation.

But it is special . It's the difference between stroking a piece of round steel rod across your forearm . And doing the same stroke with a ' Samaria sword ( sharp) . Both steel , one gives you a cool rub the other a nasty cut .

 

Mike

[swansont]

 

Sorry about the signal to noise problem . We obviously have a different style of talking . Me fairly exploratory ,deliberately to try alternatives even though they may be a non starter. You wanting things to be exact statements of truth , all the way through . ( if I have got you wrong ,I am sorry )

 

The problem here is refusing to address the issues that make it a non-starter.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The problem here is refusing to address the issues that make it a non-starter.

 

.

.

Are you categorically ruling out ' long waves ' as a suitable medium , for communicating energy over certain distances . That is a very bold statement . You could go down in the annals of scientific history for impeding change for the good .

 

( if you are wrong ? ) .

 

If you are right ( I will concede defeat ! )

 

Mike

Edited July 16, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

But it is special . It's the difference between stroking a piece of round steel rod across your forearm . And doing the same stroke with a ' Samaria sword ( sharp) . Both steel , one gives you a cool rub the other a nasty cut .

 

Mike

 

You keep saying that, but the problem is that you don't actually back it up with anything.

 

You are making the same mistake. If you hit your arm hard enough with the rod, you can chop your arm off. Your body doesn't care about how sharp the rod is if enough force is applied, and you are simply assuming the same force, which is a bad assumption. Similarly, your body doesn't care so much what the wavelength of the radiation is that's cooking it, it cares about the deposited power.

 

Are you categorically ruling out ' long waves ' as a suitable medium , for communicating energy over certain distances .

 

No, I'm saying the burden of proof is upon you, and you have not looked into this.

 

One of many parts of the idea that have to be defended.

That is a very bold statement . You could go down in the annals of scientific history for impeding change for the good .

 

 

Oh, please. Leave the hyperbole at home.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

..........radiation is that's cooking it, ........

 

I'm saying the burden of proof is upon you

 

.

This sounds upside down to me ! I have never met anyone who has said they got hot, cooked , or anything else for being near long waves . I have never read anywhere, anything to indicate long waves do humans damage or anything else for that matter .

 

Now I have heard , I have seen evidence , I have read about people being cooked, killed damaged , burnt, and wounded at everything from microwaves to gamma rays , but not by long waves . So surely the evidence appears to be well weighted in supporting my supposition that long waves will not hurt anyone or any thing.

 

If you are saying I have to set up a test of high power long waves and expose living things to it . Yes possibly a long way down the line . But at the moment that is a waste of time .

 

I need to do a feasibility of whether energy can in fact be transferred by long wave from a transmitting source , distributed and received sufficient to ( say charge an I pad ) or turn a small motor.

 

If I am successful in that . THEN. And only THEN is it worth going through an exposure test . Surely ?

 

Mike

Edited July 16, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

This sounds upside down to me ! I have never met anyone who has said they got hot, cooked , or anything else for being near long waves .

 

Because they aren't around those waves at high power levels, which is the point I have been hammering on, and you continue to ignore.

 

Now I have heard , I have seen evidence , I have read about people being cooked, killed damaged , burnt, and wounded at everything from microwaves to gamma rays , but not by long waves .

 

Microwaves are non-ionizing. Thus, the damage is possible. It's a matter of absorbed power.

So surely the evidence appears to be well weighted in supporting my supposition that long waves will not hurt anyone or any thing.

 

 

How can evidence you agreed was non-existent be in support of your argument? Nobody has died from a drop of exactly 12,000 feet, either, but that's hardly evidence that such a drop is safe.

 

I need to do a feasibility of whether energy can in fact be transferred by long wave from a transmitting source , distributed and received sufficient to ( say charge an I pad ) or turn a small motor.

 

If I am successful in that . THEN. And only THEN is it worth going through an exposure test . Surely ?

 

 

I agree that the order probably doesn't matter. If the technology fails the safety is moot. If the economics fail the safety is moot. But that's a substantially different situation than assuming these issues don't exist.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Because they aren't around those waves at high power levels, which is the point I have been hammering on, and you continue to ignore.

 

Microwaves are non-ionizing. Thus, the damage is possible. It's a matter of absorbed power.

 

How can evidence you agreed was non-existent be in support of your argument? Nobody has died from a drop of exactly 12,000 feet, either, but that's hardly evidence that such a drop is safe.

 

I agree that the order probably doesn't matter. If the technology fails the safety is moot. If the economics fail the safety is moot. But that's a substantially different situation than assuming these issues don't exist.

.

Well we will leave the power levels of long waves for now . We agree on micro waves . " Well just because people have not died from long waves ( not yet of sufficient power ? ) does not prove they might not yet" . Well we will have to wait and see on that one . I, am pretty confident that will not be the case , .but I take your point of not dying from falling from exactly 12,000 ft . 12,500 yes , 11,900 yes , but not exactly 12,000 feet . I guess you must be keeping that height for throwing me out of an aircraft? Attached by my ankles , to long waves ( like bungee jumping ) .

 

Mike

Edited July 16, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Harold Squared]

It is less a matter of energy availability as it is of conversion to a useful form.

 

Traditionally fuel is produced by natural means, wood, coal, oil, gas or mountain streams. It is then harvested or transported via dams or surface transportation. Finally it is converted to electricity and powers this discussion.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

It is less a matter of energy availability as it is of conversion to a useful form.

Traditionally fuel is produced by natural means, wood, coal, oil, gas or mountain streams. It is then harvested or transported via dams or surface transportation. Finally it is converted to electricity and powers this discussion.

Unfortunately we have harvested a lot of natures store already . I am suggesting we harvest a small portion of the suns energy while in orbit , and send it down to earth in long wave form . This then is an indefinitely sustainable supply .

 

1. To distribute it generally everywhere at 100 watts per sq meter for personal use ( personal transport, communications, computing ) etc

 

2 To send to set sites spread throughout the world . But directed to these stations at 10 megawatts per site ( 100meters x 100meters) ( 1 kilowatt per sq meter. ) for living and industrial use .

 

Mike

 

Ps I like the sound of these quartz crystal antennas . Saves on lengthy Aerials.

Edited July 24, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos